N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R IC K M UR PHY, DB A Pinna c le M a na ge m e nt Group,

Pla i ntiff - Appe lla

nt,

v. AC W C B P M AINE LLC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 16-16048 D.C . No. 4:15-C V-00238-FR Z

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Fra nk R . Za

pa ta , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2017** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W ALLAC E a

nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s , a n d R ESTANI,*** Judge

. R ic k M urphy (“ M urphy ” ) a ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt in fa vor of AC W C B P M a ine LLC (“ AC W ”). W e ha ve jurisdic tion p ursua nt to 2 8 

# FIL ED

OCT 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

n d is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** This pa

ne l una n i m ously finds this c a s e suita

ble for de c ision without a rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judge for the Unite d Sta te s C ourt of Inte rna tiona l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.U.S.C

. § 1332. W e re vie w the sum m a ry judge m e nt de novo, c onstruing the fa c ts a n d d r aw i n g a ll re a sona

ble infe re nc e s i n fa vor of the nonm oving pa rty
. Ea rl v. Nie lse n M e d ia R e se a rc h, Inc ., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th C ir. 2011). 1. The distric t c o u rt prope rly e nte re d s um m a ry judgm e n t in fa v or of AC W o n M urphy ’ s bre a c h of c o ntra c t c la im

. The pa rtie s a gre e M a ine la

w gove rns this a c tion. Se c tion 13004 of M a ine ’ s Real E s t at e B roke ra ge L ic e nsing Ac t , M e . Sta t. tit. 32, § 13004, pre c lu d es a p ar t y from m a inta ining a n a c tion for a re a l e sta te b roke r’ s fe e , unle ss the pa

rty is a lic e nse d r eal es t at e broke r in M a ine

. B e c a use M urphy did not prove lic e nsure in M a ine , he is pre c lude d from m a inta ining this a c tion. 2. The distric t c ourt p rope rly e nte re d sum m a ry judgm e n t in fa vor of AC W o n M urphy ’ s unjust e nric hm e n t c la im

. Se c tion13004 prohibits m a inta ining “ a ny a c tion,” inc l uding e quita

ble a c tions, for re c ove ry of broke r’ s fe e s . B e c a use M urphy did not prove his lic e nsure i n M a ine , h is e quita ble c l a im is “ sta

tutorily ba

rre d.” Se e Sm ith v. C a nne ll, 723 A.2d 876, 880 (M e . 1999) (e m pha sis origina l). 3. M urphy ’ s a

rgum e n t tha t se c tion 13004 only ba

rs him from bringing a

n

a c tion in M a i ne sta

t e c ourt, but not e lse whe re , is inc orre c t. Se c tion 13004 is M a ine substa ntive la w, a nd so a fe de ra l c ourt sitting in dive rsity a pplie s tha t la w a s a M a i ne sta te c o urt would a

p p ly it. Se e Ga spe rini v. C tr. for Hum a n itie s, Inc ., 518 U.S. 415, 426–28 (1996). Thus, be c a use M urphy ’ s c la im

would be ba

rre d in

2M a i ne sta

te c o urt, it is ba

rre d in fe de ra l c o urt a s we ll. Gua ra n ty Trust C o. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109 (1945) (“ [W ] h e re a fe de ra l c o urt is e xe rc ising jurisdic tion sole ly

be c a use of the dive rsity

of c itiz e nship of the pa

rtie s, the outc om e of the litiga

t ion in the fe de ra l c ourt should be substa ntia lly the sa m e , so fa r a s le g a l rule s de te rm ine the outc om e of a litiga tion, a s it would be if trie d in a Sta t e c ourt.” ). AFFIRM E D.

3